On What Is Made: Instruments, Products and Natural Kinds of Artefacts

Abstract

Debates in the metaphysics of artefacts typically start from the observation that technical artefacts result from intentional production and then focus immediately on the issue whether this ‘mind-dependence’ undermines claims that artefacts exist or come in natural or real kinds. We aim to add sophistication to debates on the latter issue by approaching it through an analysis of contemporary engineering and in continuity with discussions in the metaphysics of science. We first reconstruct which productive activities are involved in contemporary artefact production. From this reconstruction, we derive two general classification systems for artefacts – which we call the ‘instrument’ and ‘product’ systems. Then, we adopt from discussions in the metaphysics of science three conditions for classifications to correspond to natural kinds. For each of these three conditions, we discuss which conception or aspect of mind-independence it embodies and to what extent our two classification systems meet it. We conclude that the instrument system is mind-dependent in all ways and the product system only in some. Finally, we identify two options for finding natural classifications of artefacts and develop the second as one that establishes continuity between the metaphysics of science and engineering. This second option leads to a classification system that can correspond to natural kinds and that incorporates the product classes of technical artefacts extensionally.

Keywords

Notes

Acknowledgments

Our thanks go to Maarten Franssen, Peter Kroes and Thomas Reydon for their comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. Research by Wybo Houkes and research by Pieter Vermaas were supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).

Appendix: Action-Theoretical Descriptions

Table 10.3

Designing

D.1

The designer d wants to contribute to a user’s goal of bringing about a state gu

D.2

d believes that the state gu′ is the closest consistent and viable approximation of gu and intends to contribute to bringing about gu′

D.3

d believes that if the users follow an appropriate use plan up that involves the interaction with items {x1, x2, …}, this will contribute to bringing about gu′ and intends to construct this plan up

D.4

d intends to contribute to producing the items xi, xj, etc., that do not yet exist by product-designing them

D.5

d intends to communicate up to the users

D.6

d believes that gu′ can or cannot be brought about by the users to whom up is communicated. This belief is based on the observation that some users go through a sequence of actions up′ and bring about gu″ and on a comparison of gu″ with gu′

D.7

d decides that her goal to contribute to bringing about gu′ has been achieved or not. In the latter case, d may decide to repeat the entire D sequence, settle on another plan (return to D.3), re-product-design at least one of the items xi, xj, etc., (return to D.4) or re-attempt communication (return to D.5)

Table 10.4

Product designing

PD.1

The designer d believes that an item x with physicochemical capacity ϕ does not exist

PD.2

d intends to contribute to realising the goal state gdx, consisting of the existence of a description id of an item x with physicochemical capacity ϕ

d believes that a composite of the components {c1, c2, …}, where c1 has capacity ϕ1, c2 has capacity ϕ2, etc., has the desired capacity ϕa

PD.5

For each component ci, d intends to contribute to bringing about the goal state gdci, consisting of the existence of a description of an item ci with capacity ϕi; if d believes that this item ci already exists, then design task gdci is fulfilled by describing this item. If d believes that this item ci does not exist, then another decomposition step PD.4, component design task step PD.5 and integration step PD.6 are made in order to fulfil design task gdci

PD.6

d believes that the various design tasks gdci are fulfilled simultaneously, i.e. that the item x composed of the described components {c1, c2, …} has the capacity ϕ

PD.7

d intends to communicate the description id of item x, possibly along with instructions for production and assembly of it and/or its components to appropriate agents

aIn principle one can have only one component, in which case x is equal to c1 and ϕ is equal to ϕ1

Table 10.5

Manufacturing designing

MD.1

The manufacturing designer md wants to contribute to a maker’s goal of bringing about an item x as described with description id by the agent a

MD.2

md believes that an item x′ is the closest consistent and viable approximation of x and intends to contribute to bringing about x′

MD.3

md believes that if the makers follow an appropriate make plan mp that involves the manipulation of materials {y1, y2, …} and tools {z1, z2, …}, this will contribute to bringing about x′ and intends to construct this plan mp

MD.4

md intends to contribute to producing the items yi, yj, etc., that do not yet exist by product-designing thema

MD.5

md intends to communicate mp to the makers

MD.6

md believes that x′ can or cannot be brought about by the makers to whom mp is communicated. This belief is based on the observation that some makers go through a sequence of actions mp′ and bring about x″ and on a comparison of x″ with x′

MD.7

md decides that her goal to contribute to bringing about x′ has been achieved or not. In the latter case, md may decide to repeat the entire MD sequence, settle on another plan (return to MD.3), re-product-design at least one of the items yi, yj, zk, zl, etc., (return to MD.4) or re-attempt communication (return to MD.5)

aIf, say, the right machines for making x singled out by the manufacturing designer md do not yet exist, he or she may decide to let them be made first. This turns making into an iterative process: items are made with items that were previously made

Table 10.6

Making

M.1

The maker m wants to bring about the existence of an item x as described by description id by an agent a

M.2

m either chooses from a set of available alternatives a make plan mp for bringing about the existence of x that involves the manipulation of materials {y1, y2, …} and tools {z1, z2, …}

M.3

m believes that the physical circumstances support realising mp and that he possesses the necessary skills

M.4

m intends to carry out mp and acts accordingly

M.5

m observes x′ as the outcome of mp and compares x′ with x

M.6

m believes that x has been brought about or not. In the latter case, he may decide to repeat the realisation of mp or to repeat the entire M-sequence